California education officials acted legally when they temporarily halted in-person monitoring of school programs for limited English-speakers and others with special needs in 2009, and restored only limited inspections a year later, a state appeals court has ruled.

Federal and state laws allow each state to decide how to monitor federally funded education programs, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said Wednesday in rejecting a suit backed by civil rights groups. Besides those who speak limited English, programs in California are aimed at homeless or neglected children, delinquent children and children of migrant workers.

State monitors had formerly visited schools to take part in those programs every three to four years. They met with school officials, teachers, parents and students and determined whether students were making progress and whether the money was being used properly.

Districts that repeatedly fell short could be ordered to change their curriculum and teaching methods.

Citing a loss of state funds, then-state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell suspended the visits in March 2009 and resumed them for a small number of districts in 2010, saying the others would be monitored from state offices.

Supporters of the programs filed suit in June 2009, citing a federal law requiring states that receive federal funding to "take appropriate action to overcome language barriers" - action that California lawmakers had decided must include on-site monitoring, the plaintiffs argued.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Charlotte Woolard dismissed the suit and was affirmed by the appeals court, which said federal law allows state education officials to determine "appropriate action" and does not require in-person inspections.

The state now limits on-site monitoring to "the districts most in need of oversight and correction" but continues to monitor other programs, said Justice James Lambden in the 3-0 decision.